Signed log..

[+team lagonda]

What do,ya all think ? should you get credit for a find if you dont sign the log....i could set here all day and post finds that i never went to,,much to the chargrin of people that realy care bout such things....

Edited June 13, 2007 by team lagonda

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm sure there is a back story to go with this question - can you provide the basis for the question?

 

As it stands, 99% of the time you are going to get a simple "no" response to this as you've posted it. There may be a circumstance where the cache owner would allow it, though.

 

What caused you to ask?

[+egami]

What do,ya all think ? should you get credit for a find if you dont sign the log....

 

I am assuming someone said they signed it, or simply just logged the find, and didn't actually have a log entry.

 

Believe it or not...I've actually "forgot" to sign a log a couple of times. I cache with my kids a lot (9 mo., 2yr and 4yr) and it just slipped my mind to bring the pen from the truck.

 

My suggestion: At least contact the individual and see if they can verify it with a description of the hiding place if you are inclined to delete the log.

[+team lagonda]

im not concerned with my caches..but,,i have noticed that ''most'' of the loged finds,of ANY cache , that the finder doesnt mention he/she signed the log....which makes the find total of any cacher meaningless..

Edited June 13, 2007 by team lagonda

[+Stunod]

So...if my online log says "nice area, thanks for bringing me here" you might think I didn't sign the log?

I bet most of my online logs say nothing about me actually signing the log...doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[+team lagonda]

stunod..most people say,,tftc,,etc.etc.but dont mention signed log....i know of a trash dump where theres a cache an the finder said ''nice area''lol....i,ve also noticed most people pretty much copy the last finders post pretty close ....

Edited June 13, 2007 by team lagonda

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I hardly ever sign a log.

[+team lagonda]

corp..thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

Edited June 13, 2007 by team lagonda

[+tozainamboku]

If you are a cache owner, you are within your rights to go check the physical log and delete the online found it logs of people who did not sign the log. If you do, someone will call you a meany, or maybe a puritan, or even a fascist. If you go to check and cache is missing or the log is missing, I'm not sure what you can do. I guess you could delete all the logs posted since the last time you checked.

 

I you are a finder and believe you must sign the log to get a find, you are within your rights to post a DNF on a cache you found but couldn't sign for some reason. The cache owner does not have the ability to change your DNF to a found it log. I suppose the cache owner could just delete your DNF log. I've seen it happen becuase some cache owners think that if someone sees a DNF they won't go looking for the cache even though it is clearly still there to be found.

 

I you are a cache owner who believes that you don't have to sign to claim a find, you can still delete a find that you believe is bogus. Or you could just trust that very few people actually lie about finding caches.

 

If you post a find on a cache where you didn't sign the log you run the risk of having a cache who insists on checking physical logs and deleting online found it logs that don't have a matching physical signature. Even though these cache owners are almost as rare as cachers who sit at home logging bogus found it logs, there are a few, so I recommend always signing the log.

 

So far as I can tell there is no requirement to say SL in your online found it log. In my opinion, the online log is to report your caching experience to the owner and the rest of the community. It is not for keeping "score". Still I agree that its a good idea to use the 'Found It' when you have found the cache and the 'DNF' or 'Note' if you haven't found the cache to avoid confusion.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

corp..thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

 

Gotta think outside the box. I never said I didn't leave my mark- in more than one way 95% or so of the time...and probably 100% of my online posts have this: 'TNLN, SL. TFTC'.

[+team lagonda]

thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

[Pto]

corp..thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

 

If you are trying to use other peoples numbers, then yes they are. I too hardly ever mention signing the log, kind of like not mentioning turning on the gps. I usually try to write about my experience.

 

This past weekend, the first time I have ever really cached with other people - I intrtoducred my wife and her mom to the sport. I let them sign the caches we found, and never thought to tell them to be sure and stick my name in there.... Opps!

But i did locate the cache. I also let them open it, and re hide it too...

I dont consider these to be any less of finds than any of my others.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

 

I don't get the correlation of people not stating they've signed the log to find numbers being meaningless. Altho I will give you that they don't really mean anything in the end...

 

PS: All of my physical logs are readily identifiable.

[+StarBrand]

Find numbers may be meaningless but signing the log and visiting the cache is the only way you should get them.

 

 

Fake logs can and do affect us.

[+Thrak]

thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

 

Your point? YOUR numbers don't mean a thing to me and MY numbers only mean anything to me and nobody else. I often say something online like "many thanks for the cache" or "thanks for bringing me to this place" without mentioning that I signed the log. If I do write TNLNSL it was likely a pretty uninspired cache.

 

I ran into TeamAlamo (22208 finds) one day while out caching. They found the cache - I know because I was there - but I don't think he signed the log. I was surprised but..............

 

I always sign the log but a couple of times I've forgotten to log the cache. I found two this year that, when I got to the cache, I realized I had been there last year. I went back and retroactively logged them online with an explantion why the date was off.

[+Jedi Cacher]

This is an interesting issue. A fellow cacher and I just had this conversation today about signing logs. This particular cacher is poised to make his first hide but is wary of cachers logging there find online without ever even visiting the cache site. The cache hider says he will check the cache logbook periodically to see if it corresponds with the online log. My question is, if the cache hider does this and finds some questionable log in's, what rights does the hider have to negate the find of a bogus cacher? There has got to be cachers out there that log finds that have never been to the cache site. I do not know why somebody would even want to do that.

[+CYBret]

So what's your point?

[+CYBret]

So is your point that if I don't say I signed the log in my online log then maybe I didn't actually sign the log?

 

Doesn't that seem a little redundant?

 

By the same token would not mentioning that I hiked to the cache mean that I allowed Sherpa guides to carry me to the cache? If I don't mention how pretty the scenery was, would that mean that I wore a blindfold? If I fail to mention the walk back out of the park then would you assume I'm still there hanging around?

 

I believe you'll find your devil right smack dab in the details.

 

Bret

[+boda]

My numbers are not meaningless.

 

Also, a few months back there was a thread that started off with the idea that stating you signed the on-site log by putting "SL" or "Signed log" in the on line post was stupid and redundant.

 

Now what I am supposed to do - darned if I do, and darned if I don't.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Find numbers may be meaningless but signing the log and visiting the cache is the only way you should get them.

 

 

Fake logs can and do affect us.

[+mamid]

there were two I didn't sign.

 

1: I forgot because I was hunting after another one which was withing striking distance and was too into finding it.

2: I couldn't get the log out of the micro and was trying with my key. Jammed in so tight that you couldn't get it out.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Find numbers may be meaningless but signing the log and visiting the cache is the only way you should get them.

 

 

Fake logs can and do affect us.

 

So, are there really people out there logging online when they never found the Cache?

 

"Why would someone do that?"

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

How can anyone enjoy this game if they're so worried about confirming who wrote their name in the book?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I only have two situations where I feel the need to verify.

 

1. a series of puzzles involving BMs, where some early "finders" mistook it for a virtual.

 

2. a multi. where the logbook moves around among 7 secondary stages(conceptual).

[+Kit Fox]

If you are a cache owner, you are within your rights to go check the physical log and delete the online found it logs of people who did not sign the log. If you do, someone will call you a meany, or maybe a puritan, or even a fascist. If you go to check and cache is missing or the log is missing, I'm not sure what you can do. I guess you could delete all the logs posted since the last time you checked.

 

I did that once and it left a bitter taste in my mouth. Verifying Finds

 

 

Other interesting threads pertaining to this issue:

 

Signed Log

 

Must log be signed?

[+Too Tall John]

To the OP:

What do,ya all think ? should you get credit for a find if you dont sign the log....i could set here all day and post finds that i never went to,,much to the chargrin of people that realy care bout such things....

People do it all the time. I don't like it, but they do. Not much I can do about it, unless it's my cache they log.

I only have two situations where I feel the need to verify.

 

1. a series of puzzles involving BMs, where some early "finders" mistook it for a virtual.

 

2. a multi. where the logbook moves around among 7 secondary stages(conceptual).

If you aren't talking about benchmarks, I'm glad I haven't done that series.

[+TeamFROG]

Gee, I don't always mention "SL" in my log posts even though we always sign the logs. Sometimes I just get sidetracked with the story of how the cache hunt went that I just plain forget. I do always remember to thank the hider for the cache though. Does that count?

[+Scaber]

Of course generally one should always sign the log. With that being said people can do what ever they want. There are no geo-cops out there (but I've seen some tough reviewers). If you wanted to you could just go onto GC.com and log thousands of caches you have never been to. Your own geo-ethics are up to you. I have placed about 20 caches and have never retrieved a log and checked it with the online logs. It would be interesting to do so though!

[+Confucius' Cat]

thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

Pretty much sums it up.

We can move on now

[+imajeep]

I hardly ever sign a log.

 

I know--you hit it with your stamp (which, by the way, is pretty cool)

[+3 Hawks]

Isn’t it fascinating how the "score" and "numbers" mean nothing in this thread, but mention people logging temp caches at an event and everything changes. All civility and acceptance goes out the window, people rush to judgment, and condemn without the bat of an eye. Some seem to be "puritans" on some issues and fanatics on other issues that are just as meaningful/meaningless. We cachers sure are a fickle bunch.

 

I visited a cache 150 miles from home only to find the entire area crawling with muggles. I could see the cache but there was no way to get the cache without drawing far too much attention to my activities. Climbing the sides of a DNR shelter/display area may have looked odd to some. I posted a DNF and explained that I would be back in a few weeks to make the formal find. During my absence, 4 or 5 other teams posted finds. A few weeks later, I returned to make the find. I visited the cache at night and used a ladder to grab the cache. I opened the container and discovered only the FTF log and the log of the person who found it immediately before me. The find logs of the other "finders" would lead anyone to think they actually signed the log. This was a 4 star physical difficulty cache, and the owner intended this to be a tough find. I pointed out my observance in my find log and the owner has removed the log all together. Now you need to obtain a password from the cache and you must e-mail the owner to verify that you actually found the cache.

 

With that said; there has been a few times that I've logged finds without signing the log. One cache was up in a tree and I had just torn my rotator cuff in my right shoulder and strained the ulnar nerve in my left elbow. I was not about to climb the tree and I would have been happy to make a return trip. I ran into the cache owner later that afternoon and told him of my intention to revisit the cache. He told me to log it as a find and we both had a good laugh. I explained my actions in my log and nobody had a problem. I felt guilty about it and I eventually made a trip back to sign the log after my injuries had healed. I was relatively new at the time and I don't think I'd do it again. I would challenge anyone to pass judgement on my actions.

 

I've also logged finds on muggled caches where the logs were missing. The cache was still there, in some form, but the log was missing. I posted my find and notified the owner of the cache's condition. Nobody had any issues with those either. I have learned to carry extra paper on my person to sign and add to the cache in these situations.

 

I've discovered caches that had been destroyed by lawn mowers and the logs and containers were in pieces. I picked up the pieces, placed them in ziplock baggies, and re-hid the remains. I posted my finds and notified the owners of my discoveries. Nobody had any problems with those either.

 

If you've never hiked three miles to a cache only to discover that you have nothing to write with or your pen does not work, then you have not been caching long enough. I've had pens freeze up on me while caching under dangerous and quite severe winter conditions. A stick or a leaf in the log book was the only proof I had to show I visited the cache. Nobody had any problems with what I left as proof of my visit.

 

There may be any number of reasons why people don't sign a log. We all know who are the honest cachers and we know who the suspect cachers are in our respective caching communities.

 

Either it is about the numbers or it is not about the numbers. I like to think it isn't about the numbers and the numbers only have meaning to me but I know that is not the case. I've seen viscous attacks against the established practices of cachers by those who think they are the "global caching police."

 

We all get carried away at times and we've all done things we are not proud of. This is only a game. There are no prizes and there is no end to the game. Play the game the way you want to play it. Try not to impose your sense of morality too liberally and just try to have fun. Forming new and lasting friendships will be the reward those who play fairly. Isn't that what it's all about?

 

Now I can sit back and watch the "caching police" attack me for this post. I gues that is what they think caching is all about.

Edited June 14, 2007 by 3 Hawks

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I hardly ever sign a log.

 

I know--you hit it with your stamp (which, by the way, is pretty cool)

 

Was wondering if that would come out...lol.

[+benh57]

This was a 4 star physical difficulty cache, and the owner intended this to be a tough find. I pointed out my observance in my find log and the owner has removed the log all together. Now you need to obtain a password from the cache and you must e-mail the owner to verify that you actually found the cache.

 

I believe that is actually against the guidelines now, unless you are a mystery cache type. It is called a code-word cache.

[+team lagonda]

3hawks..thats my point,,why have find numbers....

[+simpjkee]

if you dont sign the log, you didnt find it. I need proof. If you forgot your pen. oooops, you'll have to come back

[+Sagefox]

im not concerned with my caches..but,,i have noticed that ''most'' of the loged finds,of ANY cache , that the finder doesnt mention he/she signed the log....which makes the find total of any cacher meaningless..

 

I hope it is being made clear here that it is a misconception to think that if people don't say in their on-line Found It log that they signed the log then they must not have actually signed the log. I have never felt it necessary to say in my on-line log that I signed the logbook and, as you are begining to discover, neither do most other cachers. I can count on one hand the number of times I have stated that I signed the log. I can also count on one hand the number of times I have not signed the log but claimed the find.

 

Another misconception in this topic and many others is: Signing the log is what constitutes a cache find. Physically finding the container is what constitutes a cache find. Singing the log is merely a method of verifying that someone found a cache.

 

There are some legitimate reasons for not signing the log and there are other methods for verifying the container was actually found. Fortunately alternate methods of verification are seldom used and, by a very wide margin, most people sign the log.

[+jbiciolis91]

I dont know I think there could be a few exceptions and legitimate reasons why someone did not sign a log. The one that comes to mine is if the person didnt have anything to write with. I know that most caches that dont have a pen/cil in them say to bring a writing stick but just because someone says something doesn't mean the person is going to remeber or follow it

[CoyoteRed]

Another misconception in this topic and many others is: Signing the log is what constitutes a cache find. Physically finding the container is what constitutes a cache find. Singing the log is merely a method of verifying that someone found a cache.

I think the misconception is yours.

 

There are too many decoys caches, locked caches, physically difficult to access caches, and trash-thought-to-be-a-cache for one to be able to reliably use "found container" as a standard of what constitutes a find.

 

There are some legitimate reasons for not signing the log and there are other methods for verifying the container was actually found. Fortunately alternate methods of verification are seldom used and, by a very wide margin, most people sign the log.

The legitimate reasons only start coming into play when the log itself is un-signable like when it's too wet to take ink or is pulp. It's only then when alternate methods start coming into play, but even then there needs to be proof. Drop a slip of paper with your name on it in the cache. Take a picture of you holding the cache and upload it. Even then that is only at the discretion of the cache owner, but I'd hope they would accept it considering it is their cache that has the problem.

 

As folks are happy to point out this is a social site. The interaction of the logs is what some folks enjoy. The online logs are public declarations of activity of both the cache and cachers. When you post a Found It log on a cache you're saying you found the cache. The community standard of being able to claim such a thing is getting your name in the logbook with few exceptions regardless of what your own personal standards are. Yell "It's a misconception" at the top of your lungs until you go hoarse for all I care, but the standard exists.

Edited June 24, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+geomann1]

Another misconception in this topic and many others is: Signing the log is what constitutes a cache find. Physically finding the container is what constitutes a cache find. Singing the log is merely a method of verifying that someone found a cache.

I think the misconception is yours.

 

There are too many decoys caches, locked caches, physically difficult to access caches, and trash-thought-to-be-a-cache for one to be able to reliably use "found container" as a standard of what constitutes a find.

 

There are some legitimate reasons for not signing the log and there are other methods for verifying the container was actually found. Fortunately alternate methods of verification are seldom used and, by a very wide margin, most people sign the log.

The legitimate reasons only start coming into play when the log itself is un-signable like when it's too wet to take ink or is pulp. It's only then when alternate methods start coming into play, but even then there needs to be proof. Drop a slip of paper with your name on it in the cache. Take a picture of you holding the cache and upload it. Even then that is only at the discretion of the cache owner, but I'd hope they would accept it considering it is their cache that has the problem.

 

As folks are happy to point out this is a social site. The interaction of the logs is what some folks enjoy. The online logs are public declarations of activity of both the cache and cachers. When you post a Found It log on a cache you're saying you found the cache. The community standard of being able to claim such a thing is getting your name in the logbook with few exceptions regardless of what your own personal standards are. Yell "It's a misconception" at the top of your lungs until you go hoarse for all I care, but the standard exists.

 

Coyote - I come back from my vacation in NC & SC, and you are still arguing this point!.

 

The basic problem we have here is that the more trivial a matter, the more strongly people will argue it, and people become obsessive with their hobbies. I am strongly of the opinion that if I find the cache container and their is no doubt in my mind that the cache has indeed been found, it is find, and that signing the logbook and doing a trade are secondary, pleasant, rituals of the sport. That is my personal rule for the game (which has no official rules only some loose guidelines - as it should be).

 

There is no question of 'cheating' as the issue is moot as I am not competing with anyone, so I and everyone else are free to play by my/their interpretation of the rules (which I strictly follow as I don't cheat on myself!). If I were competing with anyone, then I would come to an agreement with that person as to what rules we would play by.

 

To avoid all the unpleasantness, I've decided that my official log (and find count) for my personal enjoyment of the sport is my written logbook. I sign the physical logbooks in the field and log on-line, if the cache is in my opinion worthy of being logged. In this manner, there will be no hard feeilings on anyone's part.

[+"we two want to play too"]

[start snarky tone]

This is your original question, a topic that has been brought up and discussed several times.

 

What do,ya all think ? should you get credit for a find if you dont sign the log....i could set here all day and post finds that i never went to,,much to the chargrin of people that realy care bout such things....

 

This is nearly a new, albiet an almost related, question/statement.

 

im not concerned with my caches..but,,i have noticed that ''most'' of the loged finds,of ANY cache , that the finder doesnt mention he/she signed the log....which makes the find total of any cacher meaningless..

 

And with only thirty eight posts on this thread so far, you have made this statement three times.

 

thats my point..find numbers are meaningless..

 

Could you please, as the OP, decide just what it is exactly that you want to discuss? A clearer, more concise question would be nice. Several folks in the community are trying very politely to shed some light on the subject but, a little direction would be nice.

 

[/snarky tone]

[CoyoteRed]

Coyote - I come back from my vacation in NC & SC, and you are still arguing this point!.

Well, I'm not the only one. Why did you single me out? Do I somehow threaten your sensibilities? Did I somehow offend you by pointing out something you may be ashamed of? I'm just curious.

 

To avoid all the unpleasantness, I've decided that my official log (and find count) for my personal enjoyment of the sport is my written logbook. I sign the physical logbooks in the field and log on-line, if the cache is in my opinion worthy of being logged. In this manner, there will be no hard feeilings on anyone's part.

Good for you. I doubt anyone will care if you privately claim you found a cache you didn't even lay eyes on much less signed the log.

Edited June 24, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+wildchld97]

Everyone is on the honor system. If they post a "find it" for one of my caches and don't mention that they SL...I'm certainly not going to run right down to the cache and check to see if they did in fact sign the log.

If people want to get their jolly's for having the most smily faces without actually signing the log or even visiting the actual cache...it's not my problem. I've seen quite a few people with thousands of finds. They very well may be valid...but considering the time factor involved in reaching that number, I'd really have to question if a certain percentage of them aren't "armchair caches". The way that I see it there are no winners in this game IMO. Personal satisfaction and reaching goals are the only incentives I can see for playing, so why quibble?

 

I had a guy leave a note in his log that the pen was missing so he used mud and a sharpened stick to sign. The guy wanted to make sure that he put his mark..I guess to prove that he really was there. However, if the pen was missing, I wouldn't have had a problem at all with them making a mention of it in the log and not signing. I'd either replace it or make a note to bring your own pen. Either way, I wouldn't take the credit away from those people.

[+geomann1]

Everyone is on the honor system. If they post a "find it" for one of my caches and don't mention that they SL...I'm certainly not going to run right down to the cache and check to see if they did in fact sign the log.

If people want to get their jolly's for having the most smily faces without actually signing the log or even visiting the actual cache...it's not my problem. I've seen quite a few people with thousands of finds. They very well may be valid...but considering the time factor involved in reaching that number, I'd really have to question if a certain percentage of them aren't "armchair caches". The way that I see it there are no winners in this game IMO. Personal satisfaction and reaching goals are the only incentives I can see for playing, so why quibble?

 

I had a guy leave a note in his log that the pen was missing so he used mud and a sharpened stick to sign. The guy wanted to make sure that he put his mark..I guess to prove that he really was there. However, if the pen was missing, I wouldn't have had a problem at all with them making a mention of it in the log and not signing. I'd either replace it or make a note to bring your own pen. Either way, I wouldn't take the credit away from those people.

 

I totally agree. What is disappointing to me, is that there are apparently quite a few people out there who are willing to introduce an un-necessary element of nastiness into the sport by not accepting the honor system and accusing anyone who does not play be their interpretation of the loose guidelines as cheaters.

 

It is absolutely inconceivable to me, for one of my caches, to ever challenge someones find or delete it, because it would be of bad character to me, and in any event it just does not matter. No one has to prove anything to me, and I certainly do not feel the need to prove anything to anyone else.

 

I decided that logging the cache (in the field or electronically) is more of a way to thank the cache owner for his/her efforts. If I know a cache owner is real anal about the who gets the priveledge of a claiming a smiley for his/her caches, I have started to just log it in my person logbook, but not publically log it. In this way, everyone is happy.

[+Sagefox]

There are too many decoys caches, locked caches, physically difficult to access caches, and trash-thought-to-be-a-cache for one to be able to reliably use "found container" as a standard of what constitutes a find...

 

Clearly your examples are conditions that a reasonable person assume would not qualify as a find. Some caches also have unique requirements that must be met. But most certainly, for all caches, an attempt to open the container and sign the log must be made. If it appears that I meant otherwise then I did not present my thoughts adequately.

 

...The community standard of being able to claim such a thing is getting your name in the logbook with few exceptions regardless of what your own personal standards are. Yell "It's a misconception" at the top of your lungs until you go hoarse for all I care, but the standard exists.

 

I completely agree and my many posts on this subject are in march-step with your statement here. At no time have I ever felt nor do I remember ever saying that proof of a find is not required. Proving a cache find, though a separate condition from actually finding a cache, must be done.

 

Maybe this correction will help:

 

Fortunately alternate methods of verification are seldom needed to be used and, by a very wide margin, most people sign the log.

[+Trucker Lee]

Believe it or not...I've actually "forgot" to sign a log a couple of times. I cache with my kids a lot (9 mo., 2yr and 4yr) and it just slipped my mind to bring the pen from the truck.

 

My suggestion: At least contact the individual and see if they can verify it with a description of the hiding place if you are inclined to delete the log.

 

I can see how this would happen. On my caches, I haven't yet started comparing logs to find records, seems like extra work on me to keep someone else honest. I have locks for that on the important stuff, smilies are too cheap to bother.

 

It wouold be a good way to do "remote maintenance"!

[CoyoteRed]

I completely agree and my many posts on this subject are in march-step with your statement here. At no time have I ever felt nor do I remember ever saying that proof of a find is not required. Proving a cache find, though a separate condition from actually finding a cache, must be done.

I humbly apologize for misunderstanding your post.

[+Sioneva]

Everyone is on the honor system. If they post a "find it" for one of my caches and don't mention that they SL...I'm certainly not going to run right down to the cache and check to see if they did in fact sign the log.

If people want to get their jolly's for having the most smily faces without actually signing the log or even visiting the actual cache...it's not my problem. I've seen quite a few people with thousands of finds. They very well may be valid...but considering the time factor involved in reaching that number, I'd really have to question if a certain percentage of them aren't "armchair caches". The way that I see it there are no winners in this game IMO. Personal satisfaction and reaching goals are the only incentives I can see for playing, so why quibble?

 

I had a guy leave a note in his log that the pen was missing so he used mud and a sharpened stick to sign. The guy wanted to make sure that he put his mark..I guess to prove that he really was there. However, if the pen was missing, I wouldn't have had a problem at all with them making a mention of it in the log and not signing. I'd either replace it or make a note to bring your own pen. Either way, I wouldn't take the credit away from those people.

 

I totally agree. What is disappointing to me, is that there are apparently quite a few people out there who are willing to introduce an un-necessary element of nastiness into the sport by not accepting the honor system and accusing anyone who does not play be their interpretation of the loose guidelines as cheaters.

 

It is absolutely inconceivable to me, for one of my caches, to ever challenge someones find or delete it, because it would be of bad character to me, and in any event it just does not matter. No one has to prove anything to me, and I certainly do not feel the need to prove anything to anyone else.

 

I decided that logging the cache (in the field or electronically) is more of a way to thank the cache owner for his/her efforts. If I know a cache owner is real anal about the who gets the priveledge of a claiming a smiley for his/her caches, I have started to just log it in my person logbook, but not publically log it. In this way, everyone is happy.

 

I was going to post my own reply, but why re-state what was already said so well? I've got better things to do then play cache-cop on my caches - if someone wants to claim bogus finds, it doesn't hurt me. Their problem, not mine.

[CoyoteRed]

Apparently a segment of the caching population has not thought about the consequences of adopting "I don't care if you sign the log" attitude.

 

Don't think folks will flat-out cheat? How about the guy that reported a local who would go through archived caches and postdate finds. The reasoning, who can prove him wrong?

 

Okay, so that doesn't affect others in a direct way.

 

What about bogus finds on a missing cache? This will make folks think the cache is still in place and they can waste time looking for a cache that doesn't exist.

 

Rare you say? Sure. Now.

 

What if the community adopts your attitude of "who cares if anyone signs the log?" Then it becomes acceptable to not provide any proof whatsoever. Folks will think it acceptable--and would be under your Utopian community--to log a Found It regardless of whether they even visited the area. I can see it now, combine this with the above attitude of seeking out certain caches and I can see someone looking for caches with several purple faces logged and logging a find themselves. They then sit back and enjoy the logs of folks who think the cache is there when it is still, in fact, missing. Oh, great fun.

 

By adopting no standards you promote chaos. Remember wide-open virtuals? Oh, wait...

[+geomann1]

Apparently a segment of the caching population has not thought about the consequences of adopting "I don't care if you sign the log" attitude.

 

Don't think folks will flat-out cheat? How about the guy that reported a local who would go through archived caches and postdate finds. The reasoning, who can prove him wrong?

 

Okay, so that doesn't affect others in a direct way.

 

What about bogus finds on a missing cache? This will make folks think the cache is still in place and they can waste time looking for a cache that doesn't exist.

 

Rare you say? Sure. Now.

 

What if the community adopts your attitude of "who cares if anyone signs the log?" Then it becomes acceptable to not provide any proof whatsoever. Folks will think it acceptable--and would be under your Utopian community--to log a Found It regardless of whether they even visited the area. I can see it now, combine this with the above attitude of seeking out certain caches and I can see someone looking for caches with several purple faces logged and logging a find themselves. They then sit back and enjoy the logs of folks who think the cache is there when it is still, in fact, missing. Oh, great fun.

 

By adopting no standards you promote chaos. Remember wide-open virtuals? Oh, wait...

 

Come now, I really have a lot of trouble believing that more the a very few (rather sad) people would ever log a cache they did not in fact visit and honestly believe they have found (irrespective of position on the signing issue). This is a non-competetive activity, it does not matter; where is the motivation?

 

As I noted in a previous post, cheating by definition, involves taking advantage of someone else. If you are not competing, you cannot be cheating.

 

Some times the cure is worse than the disease. I would rather assume that we are all participating in the spirit of good will and accept that few will get away with posting bogus finds, then to assume that other cachers are cheaters in order to prevent a few from posting bogus finds.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

3hawks..thats my point,,why have find numbers....

...because that's what drives people to continue finding cache after cache, long after the novelty of the idea wears off. Would that each cache were given individual appreciation in this sport, but then the sport would be quite a bit slower, like letterboxing is. Maybe that would be better, but it wouldn't bring in as much patronage for GC.com.

 

How I play:

In my line of work there's an old addage that says, "if it isn't written down somewhere, then it didn't happen." Signing the log book is the most definitive evidence of finding the cache, for me. I'm less concerned with how many caches I've found than with how many log books out there have my signature; when a cache gets muggled and replaced I sometimes re-sign the book. Archived caches hold no value to me, whether I've found them or not. If they don't exist anymore, then it doesn't feel like a find anymore.

 

What I expect of others:

That people have fun and play fair. If someone claims to have found a cache, then I'll believe them. If I find out that they lied about it, then...that's just sorry. It takes a very empty life to be brought to that point.

 

Still, I'm not one to accuse a person of lying. That's just not fun. I wouldn't be doing this at all if it weren't for the fun. I think I'd rather archive all of my caches than have to deal with that.